1987 (9) TMI 302 - SC - Indian Laws

Vice-Chancellor acted without jurisdiction; s.68 alternative remedy did not bar Article 226 relief; reinstatement ordered

DR. SMT. KUNTESH GUPTA Versus MANAGEMENT OF HINDU KANYA MAHAVIDYALAYA, SITAPUR (UP) &ORS.

The SC held the Vice-Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing the dismissal order, so the existence of an alternative remedy under s.68 ... Dismissal from service by the Authorised Controller - Existence of an alternative remedy under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 - Vice-Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing her order - Held that:- AIt is true that there was an alternative remedy for challenging the impugned order by referring the question to the Chancellor under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. It is well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. When an authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. In the instant case., the Vice-Chancellor had no power of review and the exercise of such a power by her was absolutely without jurisdiction. Indeed, the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on review was a nullity; such an order could surely be challenged before the High Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and, in our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was available to the appellant under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. As the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor is a nullity, it would be a useless formality to send the matter back to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition on merits. We would, accordingly, quash the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor dated March 7, 1987 and direct the reinstatement of the appellant forthwith to the post of Principal of the Institution. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Issues:1. Dismissal of the appellant from service by the Authorised Controller.2. Review of the dismissal order by the Vice-Chancellor.3. High Court's dismissal of the writ petition based on the availability of an alternative remedy.4. Jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor to review the order.5. Quashing of the impugned order and reinstatement of the appellant.Analysis:1. The appellant, appointed as Principal of an institution, was dismissed by the Authorised Controller following disputes with the Controller. The Vice-Chancellor disapproved the dismissal order, reinstated the appellant, and allowed her to function as Principal. However, the Controller imposed restrictions on her powers, leading to a legal challenge in the High Court. The High Court quashed the Controller's order and directed the appellant to function as Principal without constraints but allowed the Controller to impose minor penalties. The appellant then challenged a subsequent order of dismissal by the Vice-Chancellor, leading to the current appeal.2. The Vice-Chancellor reviewed her earlier order disapproving the dismissal of the appellant based on reports of financial irregularities. The appellant alleged collusion between the Vice-Chancellor and the Controller, but the court rejected this claim. The Vice-Chancellor's review was deemed without jurisdiction as there was no statutory provision for such a review. The order approving the dismissal was declared a nullity, warranting the quashing of the Vice-Chancellor's decision.3. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition citing the availability of an alternative remedy under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. However, the Supreme Court held that when an authority acts without jurisdiction, the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Given the Vice-Chancellor's lack of power to review, the High Court's dismissal on the grounds of an alternative remedy was deemed unjustified.4. The Vice-Chancellor's review of the dismissal order was found to be beyond her jurisdiction as there was no statutory provision granting her the power to review. Consequently, the order approving the dismissal was considered a nullity. The absence of a legal basis for the Vice-Chancellor's review action led to the quashing of the order and the reinstatement of the appellant to her position as Principal.5. The Supreme Court quashed the Vice-Chancellor's order, reinstated the appellant as Principal, and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court clarified that the respondents could initiate departmental proceedings based on the allegations of financial irregularities. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, emphasizing the reinstatement of the appellant and the nullification of the Vice-Chancellor's order.